Subscribe

On the eve of Dynamic Range Day, the tribute/remake of the RUSH classic “Subdivisions” quite ironically came up on my iTunes playlist. I’ve always loved that song. But the remake, despite blistering performances, sounds lifeless and uninspiring. I keep feeling like I need to turn it up, but then it just gets annoyingly loud, and I still can’t hear the drums.

Is it just a problem of the arrangement, or a lousy mix? Well, maybe, but I think there is a more fundamental problem too: not enough dynamic range.

Yes, this is another post about the Loudness Wars!

(Looking to hate on Death Magnetic? Find jaw-dropping comparison audio files right over here in Metallica Wins the Loudness Wars — and by the way, for those wondering “if Metallica ‘won,’ then who lost,” the answer is: “everybody with ears.”)

You can see when a mix has this problem

Thanks to digital editors, audio has become a visual medium. Check out this comparison of the original RUSH track and the remake. If you know anything about dynamic range, you’ll spot immediately which one is which.

If you don’t know anything about dynamic range, first of all, thanks for sticking with me, and second of all, the nutshell explanation is that the remixed track is at damn near 100% maximum volume for the whole song. See the top waveform, in blue.

If even the quiet instruments and passages are at maximum volume, there’s no way for the loud stuff to stand out or have any impact. The difference between the loudest thing and the softest thing is called “dynamic range,” and without it, music sounds like crap.

… and you can hear it, too

Now let’s listen. Here is a comparison of the two tracks at equal RMS gain. Play this back at whatever level is comfortable, and notice which one sounds better.

The mixes are different, yes. But the remake mix is much less effective, I think, due to the heavy-handed use of compression. All the life has been squeezed out of it.

“Sounding better” is a subjective thing. If you love loud guitars and keyboards, you might even prefer the remake mix, which is !#&$!@& drowning in both. However, one of the ways great arrangements convey emotion is by manipulating intensity… and if you’re at 100% for the whole song, you have nowhere left to go. This is what makes the remake mix less effective.

Dynamic Range, by the numbers

I used the “TT Dynamic Range Meter” plug-in* for Pro Tools to monitor the dynamic range of these two mixes. The remake clip above hovers steadily around 7-8dB of dynamic range. You can see the red bars in the image at right — an indication that, at least according to the people behind the plug-in, the remake mix has been overcompressed.

The original averages 12dB of dynamic range, but bounces quite a bit between 11–13dB. Even the fact that its level isn’t constant is a good sign; it means the track has room to breathe. There is space in the mix for the drums to have impact. The mix isn’t completely saturated.

To be fair, this remake of “Subdivisions” really isn’t that great an example of the overuse of compression in modern music. The mix is not nearly as crushed as some others, like the Death Magnetic CD (DR = 2.5dB).

There is a world of difference between 2.5dB and 7.5dB of dynamic range — and I’d take the 7.5dB any day. The smaller that number gets, the worse the music sounds, to the point where compression introduces distortion that literally wears out your ears as you listen.

But despite the other sins committed within this remake mix, I think it would have sounded better with more dynamic range. Because if your goal is preserving the DR while you mix and master, it means you’re no longer compromising the song’s emotional impact just to make it as loud as possible.

8 Responses to “In Celebration of Dynamic Range”

O. C.

No doubt the cover version is smashed, but it’s also not a good comparison, as it’s not exactly a great mix. So smashed or not, you’d still be struggling to hear the drums- they’re just not loud enough.

Will Addicks

I stumbled upon this article by accident, however it’s fascinating: the same exact principle applies to photography as well. There is a lot of new software called HDR, high dynamic range, and it’s the visual equivalent of what you’re talking about here. Computers have changed everything.

@O. C. and @Jacque, the mix definitely suffers from more problems than compression. But I think that even if the drums had been louder, they’d have been compressed so much that they would not have cut through as they do in the original. You can see the kick and snare hits in the waveform of the original song; they’re the loudest sounds there, which is part of the reason they have so much impact.

I’m 19 and play music, and just now tonight finally testing out my Scarlett box which fortunately made it through a fire a year ago that took everything except my guitar and two cats. I’m mad I spent all this time not learning about this stuff. I’ve spent the past five hours learning so much about mixing and mastering and I am hooked. I am using garageband right now (tisk tisk, I know), but will upgrade to Protools pronto. My dad’s friend a while back told me my songs had an impressive dynamic range, and I didn’t know what it meant but I knew it meant a lot. This article is great and I am thrilled about this pursuit of the most attractive sound, and to make my music sound exactly how I want it to sound all on my own. Just wanted to share my enthusiasm. Thanks!